Patrick McEnroe at G12 Super Nationals

Assuming Alohajrtennis accurately quoted PMac I find PMac's mumbling, stumbling, unintelligible recent statement on the proposed changes in junior tennis shocking. You would think given all the opposition to the proposed changes a Stanford grad making a million a year would offer a clear, concise, logical, rehearsed response. As an alum I can say, "Patrick you did not do us proud!"

In youth baseball there are lots of discussions about a variety of issues. But despite the fact that only an infinitesimally small fraction of young baseball players get to experience national competition based on ability and merit, you don't hear complaints about "opportunities being denied" or "we used to enjoy going to Williamsport or Aberdeen so much" that you hear about on this board in the context of tennis.

Click to expand...

If you had a system in baseball where any group of rich parents could get their local team into a 256-draw or 512-draw "Little League World Series," and after a generation of that system, you proposed replacing it with a local->state->regional->national funnel that produced only four American teams and four foreign teams for the final tournament, you would probably hear a lot of the same complaints. People would get used to bragging that "my kid played in the Little League World Series" and then that rug would be pulled out from under them, and you would hear plenty.

That said, there are other aspects of the proposed USTA changes that have no analogue in baseball, and people could very well be complaining for good reason. There is no question that in Little League, if you win the local tourney, you move on to the next level tourney. Win that, you go to the state tourney. Finish in the top 2 in the state tourney, you go to regionals, etc. People seem to have legitimate concerns about the new funnel being set up by USTA. I hope to spend some time reading and understanding the new funnel, but have to work non-stop today starting now. Interesting and informative discussion.

Good luck with this Dallas. The USTA has had a monopoly on junior tennis for so long I don't think they can conceive of competition. But they are creating a great opportunity that for tennis entrepreneurs.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Georgia Junior Open IS a USTA tournament. I can't see the USTA worrying about other "national" type tournaments popping up to serve the need of USTA players that don't make it into THE nationals. The question is whether players will be willing to travel to participate in tournaments that don't get national or sectional points but could improve their TRN ranking. The changes aren't fully in effect yet, so we'll have to wait and see. I know it was just one test case, but I'm glad the Georgia Junior Open did well this year.

Something achieved from all this is that there will be absolutely no incentive for a player to travel to participate in weak tournaments (so called point chasing). Doing so in the future won't help your USTA ranking (players won't get any national or sectional points) or your TRN ranking (players don't improve their ranking by beating much lower ranked players).

Here is a link to a non-sanction BG18s "All-in" tournament in Maryland Aug 25th. Look at the webpage. Interesting concept and formatted mimicking college team play. Coaching is allowed too, I believe?!?

If you had a system in baseball where any group of rich parents could get their local team into a 256-draw or 512-draw "Little League World Series," and after a generation of that system, you proposed replacing it with a local->state->regional->national funnel that produced only four American teams and four foreign teams for the final tournament, you would probably hear a lot of the same complaints. People would get used to bragging that "my kid played in the Little League World Series" and then that rug would be pulled out from under them, and you would hear plenty.

That said, there are other aspects of the proposed USTA changes that have no analogue in baseball, and people could very well be complaining for good reason. There is no question that in Little League, if you win the local tourney, you move on to the next level tourney. Win that, you go to the state tourney. Finish in the top 2 in the state tourney, you go to regionals, etc. People seem to have legitimate concerns about the new funnel being set up by USTA. I hope to spend some time reading and understanding the new funnel, but have to work non-stop today starting now. Interesting and informative discussion.

Click to expand...

I generally agree with all that, particularly the bolded portion.

In youth baseball.......as well as soccer, volleyball, swimming, basketball, track, lacrosse, football, (I am not sure about golf)..........there is zero consideration about earning or "chasing" points.

In youth baseball.......as well as soccer, volleyball, swimming, basketball, track, lacrosse, football, (I am not sure about golf)..........there is zero consideration about earning or "chasing" points.

The entire endeavor is 100% about improving performance.

Click to expand...

There are literally hundreds of thousands of kids playing baseball/ayso soccer etc and even in small catchment areas there is ample competition for almost any level of play. That is not true for tennis outside the one or two hot zones like South Florida or LA and so national/regional competition is critical for development beyond a certain level...

There are literally hundreds of thousands of kids playing baseball/ayso soccer etc and even in small catchment areas there is ample competition for almost any level of play. That is not true for tennis outside the one or two hot zones like South Florida or LA and so national/regional competition is critical for development beyond a certain level...

Click to expand...

The bolded text is not consistent with my experience.

Anyone who wants to be a standout in high school or get a shot at competing after high school, needs to compete outside "small catchment" areas. Doesn't have to be at national competitions, but at least at the state/regional level.

I think the USTA changes take account of the point that at least regional competition "is critical for development beyond a certain level" as you say

Yeah, but the Georgia Junior Open IS a USTA tournament. I can't see the USTA worrying about other "national" type tournaments popping up to serve the need of USTA players that don't make it into THE nationals. The question is whether players will be willing to travel to participate in tournaments that don't get national or sectional points but could improve their TRN ranking. The changes aren't fully in effect yet, so we'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think the real opportunity is there until 2014, assuming this out of control freight train stays on the tracks.

Assuming Alohajrtennis accurately quoted PMac I find PMac's mumbling, stumbling, unintelligible recent statement on the proposed changes in junior tennis shocking. You would think given all the opposition to the proposed changes a Stanford grad making a million a year would offer a clear, concise, logical, rehearsed response. As an alum I can say, "Patrick you did not do us proud!"

Click to expand...

I did my best to accurately transcribe, but to be fair, if you get the chance listen yourself. They were off the cuff remarks, and I couldn't accurately capture his pauses, many of his repeated statements we'rent stumbling, he was repeating himself with(for) emphasis for effect, etc. I wasnt trying to make him sound like an idiot. Yes, he could have had his talking points more rehearsed, but the issue to me was not how he presented his case, but the content of his argument itself.

Anyone who wants to be a standout in high school or get a shot at competing after high school, needs to compete outside "small catchment" areas. Doesn't have to be at national competitions, but at least at the state/regional level.

I think the USTA changes take account of the point that at least regional competition "is critical for development beyond a certain level" as you say

Click to expand...

I would say it is consistent with my experience, and I think we qualify as a small catchment area.

The guys going down the little shoot on the right are the Sweet 16 tea party kids...

Basically, the old system isn't a beaker, its just not as wide at the top as most people want, and not as narrow at the bottom as PD wants. With 10 and U tennis, they are trying to widen the funnel. But PMac and PD also want to narrow the bottom of the funnel, which is what we object to. As I have said before, if TAUT is successful, which I believe it will be, just leaving the number of national tournaments spots athe same is going to make the competition for these spots tougher. Basically they are simultaneously increasing the number of kids competing for a decreasing the number of spots.

I posted an analysis of how competitive the matches were at the USTA Clay Courts. The basic point is that you only need to reduce the draw until (A) most first round matches are competitive, or (B) most seeds have a competitive opening match. You also want to avoid excluding players who proved they belonged, as I also mentioned.

The same logic applies to all levels of tournaments, from Champs and Challengers (a.k.a. top two levels of sectionals) up to L3 and L2 nationals and then L1 Supernationals.

If the USTA had done such an analysis, they would have already posted the numbers. Obviously they did no such analysis, but they might have gotten a few things right by accident, I suppose.

I also doubt that each age group of nationals would end up with the exact same recommended draw size after such an analysis. The proper sizing to make a funnel shape that suits the numbers and quality of players depends on such an analysis.

EDIT: It is also possible that boys and girls do not need the same draw sizes to create the right funnel shape.

I posted an analysis of how competitive the matches were at the USTA Clay Courts. The basic point is that you only need to reduce the draw until (A) most first round matches are competitive, or (B) most seeds have a competitive opening match. You also want to avoid excluding players who proved they belonged, as I also mentioned.

The same logic applies to all levels of tournaments, from Champs and Challengers (a.k.a. top two levels of sectionals) up to L3 and L2 nationals and then L1 Supernationals.

If the USTA had done such an analysis, they would have already posted the numbers. Obviously they did no such analysis, but they might have gotten a few things right by accident, I suppose.

I also doubt that each age group of nationals would end up with the exact same recommended draw size after such an analysis. The proper sizing to make a funnel shape that suits the numbers and quality of players depends on such an analysis.

EDIT: It is also possible that boys and girls do not need the same draw sizes to create the right funnel shape.

Click to expand...

Today's R16 matches of G16 in San Diego - only 2 matches of 8 were competitive. Following your logic this tournament 's draw should be reduced to 8 players.
Lew Brewer did a road show in SD on Tuesday. Among things that were said - finer details of the changes will be discussed in September in NYC, this includes point tables. Max number of wildcards will be 16 in BG18, 8 in BG16, 3 in BG12, do not remember BG14.
The most important - this particular board is full of disinformation!

People, please do not believe that all the four websites listed above are for competitive national baseball leagues. The poster definitely has his facts wrong about youth baseball.

Cal Ripken sponsors youth baseball nationally. There is a World Series in Aberdeen, MD with 10 US regional champs and, I think 8 foreign entries. To get to the World Series (national competition), a team needs to win state, then its region. In Cal Ripken (and Little League) it is a steep downward pointing funnel to get to their World Series (national competition)

Our team made it in 2009 (Cal Ripken).

The other three listed sites have nothing (or very little) to do with leagues. They are tournaments set up by entrepreneurs. Any team who wants to fork over the entry fee and pay for travel can sign up. No ranking or W-L record requirement. The only hint of a league is ECTB, which has some age group leagues with teams from Virginia. This is not "regional and national competition year round". These are showcases.

In youth baseball there are lots of discussions about a variety of issues. But despite the fact that only an infinitesimally small fraction of young baseball players get to experience national competition based on ability and merit, you don't hear complaints about "opportunities being denied" or "we used to enjoy going to Williamsport or Aberdeen so much" that you hear about on this board in the context of tennis

Click to expand...

Thanks Mr Bill, but the poster does not have his facts wrong. The links were a sampling, and while some of them are national(LL and ripken are the largest by far), many of them are regional, and some are 'entrepreneurs' who deal with independent teams, the larger point remains the same : that is that "little league' does not have a monopoly on national play the way that USTA does. There are other avenues that are available for "inter-sectional' play in the baseball world outside of the Little League(tm) World Series.

The fact is hundreds of kids from my little backwater will be on traveling baseball teams, hundreds will be on traveling volleyball teams and hundreds will be on traveling soccer teams. And I don't mean 101, the number could be closer to a thousand.

This is really just the start of where the analogy to baseball and other sports really breaks down. As others have pointed out, there is no national individual rankings, there is no point chasing. Most kids leave the junior system at high school to focus on JV and Varsity, some of the best tennis kids don't even bother with high school cause its not competitive. Pros and colleges scouting services have hundreds of scouts spread out throughout the country, tennis does not., etc,etc,etc. Its just a really bad analogy that just doesn't hold up any kind of examination

Today's R16 matches of G16 in San Diego - only 2 matches of 8 were competitive. Following your logic this tournament 's draw should be reduced to 8 players.
Lew Brewer did a road show in SD on Tuesday. Among things that were said - finer details of the changes will be discussed in September in NYC, this includes point tables. Max number of wildcards will be 16 in BG18, 8 in BG16, 3 in BG12, do not remember BG14.
The most important - this particular board is full of disinformation!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info on the wild cards.

Please elaborate on the disinformation on this board. Are we wrong on them eliminatating 2 of the 4 SuperNats (Spring & Winter)?

Why is it "important" to note that this board is "full of disinformation"?

Thanks Mr Bill, but the poster does not have his facts wrong. The links were a sampling, and while some of them are national(LL and ripken are the largest by far), many of them are regional, and some are 'entrepreneurs' who deal with independent teams, the larger point remains the same : that is that "little league' does not have a monopoly on national play the way that USTA does. There are other avenues that are available for "inter-sectional' play in the baseball world outside of the Little League(tm) World Series.

The fact is hundreds of kids from my little backwater will be on traveling baseball teams, hundreds will be on traveling volleyball teams and hundreds will be on traveling soccer teams. And I don't mean 101, the number could be closer to a thousand.

This is really just the start of where the analogy to baseball and other sports really breaks down. As others have pointed out, there is no national individual rankings, there is no point chasing. Most kids leave the junior system at high school to focus on JV and Varsity, some of the best tennis kids don't even bother with high school cause its not competitive. Pros and colleges scouting services have hundreds of scouts spread out throughout the country, tennis does not., etc,etc,etc. Its just a really bad analogy that just doesn't hold up any kind of examination

That is disinformation. Ripken has a national championship tournament. The others aren't state, regional, or national leagues, and the tournaments are first-come-first serve. Year-round? In Cooperstown and Aberdeen? Disinformation.

In the tournaments the others beside Ripken sponsor from time to time you can be assured of playing against a team that can afford the entry fee and travel. You cannot be assured of the level of competition because there are no competitive qualification standards. If you were talking about the USA Baseball East/West Championships or the Arizona Fall Classic or tournaments like that, I would consider them regional/national and competitive. But not the Cooperstown Baseball World tournament...........that's mostly vacation and a chance to visit the Hall of Fame. Maybe that one was Googled

Yes, I get it that there are travel teams in baseball and other sports, and that this is a significant industry. Tennis travel is (has been) still way more expensive.

If I recall an earlier post, didn't you say if someone lives in a "small catchment" area such as yours, there is no need to compete at the state or regional levels to hone college-style skills? Begs the question of why "hundreds" of kids from your little backwater are on traveling teams in baseball, plus "hundreds" for soccer, plus "hundreds" for volleyball. Something doesn't fit or is maybe a little exaggerated is the impression I am getting.

Today's R16 matches of G16 in San Diego - only 2 matches of 8 were competitive. Following your logic this tournament 's draw should be reduced to 8 players.
Lew Brewer did a road show in SD on Tuesday. Among things that were said - finer details of the changes will be discussed in September in NYC, this includes point tables. Max number of wildcards will be 16 in BG18, 8 in BG16, 3 in BG12, do not remember BG14.
The most important - this particular board is full of disinformation!

Click to expand...

Are you kidding?????????

We should go with what you HEARD versus what is in WRITING by the USTA on their WEBSITE about wild cards?

I posted an analysis of how competitive the matches were at the USTA Clay Courts. The basic point is that you only need to reduce the draw until (A) most first round matches are competitive, or (B) most seeds have a competitive opening match. You also want to avoid excluding players who proved they belonged, as I also mentioned.

The same logic applies to all levels of tournaments, from Champs and Challengers (a.k.a. top two levels of sectionals) up to L3 and L2 nationals and then L1 Supernationals.

If the USTA had done such an analysis, they would have already posted the numbers. Obviously they did no such analysis, but they might have gotten a few things right by accident, I suppose.

I also doubt that each age group of nationals would end up with the exact same recommended draw size after such an analysis. The proper sizing to make a funnel shape that suits the numbers and quality of players depends on such an analysis.

EDIT: It is also possible that boys and girls do not need the same draw sizes to create the right funnel shape.

Click to expand...

match this morning in B12s SF was 6-2, 6-1 so should we now just have highest 2 ranked kids play a national tournament?
I know your point just showing that scores can be crazy and seem uncompetitive at any round.

match this morning in B12s SF was 6-2, 6-1 so should we now just have highest 2 ranked kids play a national tournament?
I know your point just showing that scores can be crazy and seem uncompetitive at any round.

Click to expand...

Yes, a 6-2,6-1 match can be full of multi-deuce games, etc. When examining a draw sheet, I needed something objective rather than subjective, and cannot be there to watch all the matches.

An important point is that a semifinal could be uncompetitive while the quarterfinals that preceded it were competitive. So, the uncompetitive semifinal would not be a good argument for getting rid of earlier rounds that were competitive.

Yes, a 6-2,6-1 match can be full of multi-deuce games, etc. When examining a draw sheet, I needed something objective rather than subjective, and cannot be there to watch all the matches.

An important point is that a semifinal could be uncompetitive while the quarterfinals that preceded it were competitive. So, the uncompetitive semifinal would not be a good argument for getting rid of earlier rounds that were competitive.

I also care NOTHING about 12 and under nationals.

Click to expand...

To bad because your missing some really good players that are up and coming, tomorrow's final will be a barn-burner.

Numbers of wildcards are being adjusted. Klu's info might be the new numbers. Does that look more fair, matching smaller draws to you?

Click to expand...

My issue is that the poster states what he heard at a meeting,
and uses words such as "do not remember" in reference to factual details.....
And then states that the Board is full of disinformation all in the same paragraph.

Please come here and share information, but the spirit of attacking this board which actually provided the meat for many letters of complaint to the USTA, including Mr. Walkers, is at best disingenuous.

The facts of the wild cards are provided by the USTA themselves..
The members on this board have just COPIED that information and tried to get the word out.

First info on actual facts from this poster has the words - "I do not remember "
from a USTA meeting...

Hopefully, some other posters can remember the actual details and not attack the posters on the board in the same breath.

We should go with what you HEARD versus what is in WRITING by the USTA on their WEBSITE about wild cards?

Wow! Way to misinform folks.

Do your homework buddy.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking you didn't see the smiley face after the last line of the message. I read Kulu's message as just telling us what they heard from Brewer, not necessarily an endorsement of that sentiment, but I could be wrong..

That is disinformation. Ripken has a national championship tournament. The others aren't state, regional, or national leagues, and the tournaments are first-come-first serve. Year-round? In Cooperstown and Aberdeen? Disinformation.

In the tournaments the others beside Ripken sponsor from time to time you can be assured of playing against a team that can afford the entry fee and travel. You cannot be assured of the level of competition because there are no competitive qualification standards. If you were talking about the USA Baseball East/West Championships or the Arizona Fall Classic or tournaments like that, I would consider them regional/national and competitive. But not the Cooperstown Baseball World tournament...........that's mostly vacation and a chance to visit the Hall of Fame. Maybe that one was Googled

Click to expand...

It's not disinformation. My quote said here are "some examples". It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list or that they were all identical and equal in to Ripken or LL. There are numerous national leagues - ripken, Little League(tm), PONY, there are regional leagues like Dixie (15 southern states, etc) Yes, some are more competitive then others. Some are more elite than others. Some are just tournaments. There is no question about that. But in your nitpicking of the trees, I think you are affirming my larger point vis-a-vis the forest - PMac's analogy to Little League is a bad one, becuase MLB does not control LL, LL is not a monopoly, and there are numerous opportunities for regional and national competition outside of LL.

Yes, and since PD KNOWS who the potential pros are by 13, you must realize these are the most important matches...:wink:

Click to expand...

Honestly I did not see anyt of the 8 QF as anything special. The #1 seed is solid but not spectacular but did show the most all court game and mis of spin, his opponent in the finals looks very athletic, but watching so of SF match was content to moonball back with to many balls landing mid court but opponents did not attack. Also he does appear very much like a DY clone, hopefully with a better work ethic.
For comparision look at S Koslov and I just do not see the kids anywhere close to the same level even with 2 more years of training.
Even the SF from last years 12's looked a little stronger than this year.

If I recall an earlier post, didn't you say if someone lives in a "small catchment" area such as yours, there is no need to compete at the state or regional levels to hone college-style skills? Begs the question of why "hundreds" of kids from your little backwater are on traveling teams in baseball, plus "hundreds" for soccer, plus "hundreds" for volleyball. Something doesn't fit or is maybe a little exaggerated is the impression I am getting.

Click to expand...

It varies by sport. I didn't meant to says state, if I did, what I meant in the case of our particular back water was regional - for us, west coast, and national, becuase for us state barely counts as traveling.

The point is, for instance, to stick with baseball, they have scouts here and scouts that come here all the time. El Cid is a high school baseball coach. If there is a kid here who has the goods, MLB and college coaches are going to know about it. The competition here is tough enough from an early age that they don't need regional or national experience and/or exposure to develop. But they travel anyway. Not because they have to, but becuase they want to. Because they can.

I'm thinking you didn't see the smiley face after the last line of the message. I read Kulu's message as just telling us what they heard from Brewer, not necessarily an endorsement of that sentiment, but I could be wrong..

Click to expand...

You are not wrong - these are all quotes from the meeting by USTA brass, not my opinions. Unfortunately I had to take care of others more important things during this meeting so was listening with one ear and had to leave early. I do not think they ironed out all finer details of the changes, including the number of wcs. They may shorten ranking period to 6 months. It seems there are changes in allocaions of sections to regions since the original proposal. Sectional quota will be 40% size/60% strength of section, strength being sum of all players with top 150 national ranking in all age groups on Dec 31st, recalculated yearly. I got an impression that they are not sure what exactly they are doing. Only tennis5 has all the answers - maybe USTA should consult her.
It seems they are having trouble recruiting TDs to conduct 32 draw nat/reg. tournaments. Barns TD said that they would be fine with losing entry fees from 128 players There was a mid-major coach who expressed concern that he would not be able to recruit players from out of his region given his recruiting budget of only $2K (and he does not recruit by video only!). Brewer agreed that it was a legitimate concern but said that the coaches had to be creative. (How creative - drive for 10hs to 32 draw regional and stay in a motel 6 or take all expense paid trip to Russia?)
Brewer mentioned that this was the lest contentious road show - not many parents there cared about 2014, myself included Overall it is a very well organized tournament in a very nice location, with a lot of great players to watch and learn from and it is not clear who will benefit from cutting 128 kids from being part of it. In 2014 at this time they will have an opportunity to go to Midland, TX and Horsham, PA to play regionals.

You are not wrong - these are all quotes from the meeting by USTA brass, not my opinions. Unfortunately I had to take care of others more important things during this meeting so was listening with one ear and had to leave early. I do not think they ironed out all finer details of the changes, including the number of wcs. They may shorten ranking period to 6 months. It seems there are changes in allocaions of sections to regions since the original proposal. Sectional quota will be 40% size/60% strength of section, strength being sum of all players with top 150 national ranking in all age groups on Dec 31st, recalculated yearly. I got an impression that they are not sure what exactly they are doing. Only tennis5 has all the answers - maybe USTA should consult her.
It seems they are having trouble recruiting TDs to conduct 32 draw nat/reg. tournaments. Barns TD said that they would be fine with losing entry fees from 128 players There was a mid-major coach who expressed concern that he would not be able to recruit players from out of his region given his recruiting budget of only $2K (and he does not recruit by video only!). Brewer agreed that it was a legitimate concern but said that the coaches had to be creative. (How creative - drive for 10hs to 32 draw regional and stay in a motel 6 or take all expense paid trip to Russia?)
Brewer mentioned that this was the lest contentious road show - not many parents there cared about 2014, myself included Overall it is a very well organized tournament in a very nice location, with a lot of great players to watch and learn from and it is not clear who will benefit from cutting 128 kids from being part of it. In 2014 at this time they will have an opportunity to go to Midland, TX and Horsham, PA to play regional.

Click to expand...

God is in the details. Or is it the Devil??? I have heard it both ways, but never mind, the point is that details are important.

As I have said from the beginning of this debate, these changes just don't seem well thought out. Everything that has been reported (and recorded) this week bears that out. Way to many "That's a good question" and "we need to look into that" responses.

At one point they said "we need to make sure there is a way for kids to move up an down". What ? You didn't think of that before you designed the system ??? Your going to look into that now ???

They clearly didn't understand many of the complexities and subtleties of the system they are changing, and many of the unknown unknowns of the system they are implementing. That unintended consequences thing.

They seem to think that the problems with their proposed system will be solved by moving some sections around, modifying the point tables, etc.

Patrick is doing something no one has tried. Give it a chance. He is not stupid, I think that we will produce more and more champions in the next few years. What we've got now is not working.

Click to expand...

Maybe..... maybe not......

You state "Patrick is doing something no one has tried".

When the USTA got rid of the competition for the boy's 12's, I am sure they thought it was a good idea at the time.
After all, no one had tried that yet......
I mean they wouldn't intentionally mess up a whole group of boys development by taking away their competition.
But, it turns out they did, and then they REVERSED themselves, even though at the time it seemed like a "good idea".
So, here is a nice example of a well intentioned plan that was not researched or thought out,
it went bad,
and then they had to reverse themselves.
So, the elimination of competition has been tried before and it was not a success.

And on a different note, you state they will produce "more and more champions in the next few years".
What bothers me about that statement is the following:

1) They had to eliminate 50% of the Super National tournaments to produce more champions?

2) They had to decrease the other two Super Nationals tournaments to produce more champions?

3) What does the national tournament schedule have to do with the other 99% of the kids who want to first play college tennis and now their exposure to college coaches has just been eliminated or vastly reduced?

4) When did the USTA become only about producing champions?

The USTA can greatly change everything and then change it back ( 12's Boy's - OOPS) as there is no accountability.
We can't vote them out.